A recent Norton commercial asks Buck to “be man enough” to run his own attack ads.

That charge appears to be what prompted Buck’s statement.

He followed the “high heels” comment by saying: “She has questioned my manhood, I think it’s fair to respond.”

Sherry points out that Team Norton started the gender game this spring, and has played the gender card off and on since. Her report provides several examples.

Your Spotted This Morning correspondent has three observations to help provide additional context.

First, the managing editor at the People’s Press Collective, which provided the video, sent out an e-mail late last night that makes this point.

“At PPC we find it interesting that the Jane Norton camp is making much of Ken Buck’s statement, given her penchant to mention her gender in other forums, even as far back as March,” the editor, Michael Sandoval, wrote.

Second, Buck may have goofed, but Norton’s feelings aren’t at all bruised. Rather, she knows that if she can keep drawing Buck into the gender game, she wins.

A little background.

Some weeks ago – and I haven’t gone back to find the recording, so I’m doing this from memory – I was honored to chat on the air with Dan Caplis and Craig Silverman.

Caplis made arguments supporting Norton I found odd.

What I understood Caplis to be saying was that because he desperately wanted to see a Republican win the Senate race, he wanted to back the candidate with the best chance of winning in November.

Caplis asked me didn’t I think that Norton was the better general election candidate because she was the more electable? A big part of the reason that she had a better chance of winning in November, Caplis argued, was that she would appeal to independent women, because she was a woman.

Now, I don’t think for a moment that Caplis meant that Norton’s being female was the only qualification women voters looked for.

He would say that’s a silly thing to believe and he would be correct.

But the question underscores the fact that among some Republicans out there eyeing the Senate race, Norton’s gender is a plus.

But I missed the bulk of the brief exchange. In chatting with observers about Buck’s remarks afterwards, the feeling was that the Weld County district attorney was having some fun responding to Norton’s claim that he ought to be “man enough” to stand up to outside groups who are running negative ads against Norton.

Chuck:
If anyone were to deal with the serious issue, how the senate candidates view women in the workplace, as opposed to the silly name calling going on here is what is revealed.

Each of the four Senate candidates has someone running their campaigns called a campaign manager. That person is probably the most important person in the campaign after the candidate themselves. In the case of the losing candidates, Norton and Romanoff, they have had multiple campaign managers.

I would suggest actions are a better way to look at a persons committment to inclusion and equal opportunity rather than words. There is a reason why Buck is leading Norton according to the Denver Post poll among women and hispanics. He actually is diverse in his treatment of people and not just in cheap political rhetoric.

Mikekiley

Is it just me, or is every single story about Rdpublicans?The funny thing is, its all negative news about Republicans.Norton is an incomeptent crony who left with the FBI on her heels the CDPHE in a shambles.Wadham can't pay is operatives.Maes can't run a business or tell the truth.McGinnis is a Plagiarist.Buck alienates even Republicans.Tancredo is just plain alien (by his views), and not the kind from Mexico.

Heather

Norton might be savvy enough to try and draw Buck into a gender spat but all politicians try and solicit the negative out of their opponents. Norton didn't lie, didn't make up stuff, didn't attack Buck's family, she simply put bait out there and Buck took it.Obviously, if Ken Buck is stupid enough to get drawn into a debate on gender in which he will likely not win then he is not smart enough to be representing Colorado in the Senate.Sorry Buck, maybe you got tricked, maybe not, but either way you chose to engage. Bad choice Ken, Dumb choice Ken.

physics_student

Don't forget, though, that Norton responded to Buck! She baits Buck into this debate, and then cries foul when he does. What a slimy politician.

lissmth

And I'm sure Chuck didn't see any Jane Nortons at the party, either. After all, she's “a girl.” She and her sex card would probably not have been welcome anyway.

Bob

The ATF function was heavily attended by 'girls'. Including my 23 year old by her demand, for the third year in a row. I believe the day's top shooters were 'girls'. I know some of the instructors on-hand were fine shooting women.Girls too like to shoot, have a drink, a smoke and some intelligent political discourse, you know.

lissmth

Bob, I think you're talking about real women.Norton keeps calling herself a “girl.” She told Jon Caldars that was the crucial difference between her and Buck. Ohhh …

Bob

My $.02Friday night broadcast Jane Norton made the girl comment to Jon Caldara on Devil's Advocate in clear jest; a simple attempt to lighten the mood. It was no more no less. Not in the least seriously and immediately Jane said it was a not too funny attempt at humor. End of story. She then POUNDED the reasons she wants our vote. I was fairly impressed.I watched that Friday night before seeing Buck respond the next morning in Kiowa. Not broadly reported is that Buck was in the audience while the small ATF casual lunch ceremony was going on. Caldara needed to run aside for just a minute and asked for a volunteer to hold the mike for a few minutes. No one jumped at the invitation and Jon asked Buck if he would please do a minute or three. Unprepared, Buck gracefully accepted and then we were off to the races with the first question.The moral of those two comments (Jane Friday and Buck Saturday) is don't do humor unless you are a pro. Or, Ronald Reagan, who was actually a pro. Do politics is my advice.How bout that Tancredo guy?

Joey Bunch has been a reporter for 28 years, including the last 12 at The Denver Post. For various newspapers he has covered the environment, water issues, politics, civil rights, sports and the casino industry.